Actual Opinions on George Orwell

when your revolution gets sabotaged by the USSR I can't imagine why he would have a deep hatred towards them.

This tbqh fam. Britain is typically better than the continent in every conceivable way, no need for Anglo leftists to take cues from continentals.

Can you post proof that William Pierce plagiarized the Turner Diaries?

Shit writer.

Neither Bookchin nor Orwell used to be controversial on this board until the last several months or so.

Honestly, what I love about Bookchin is the degree to which he deeply triggers so much of the left. And not just Holla Forums.

Shut up & read Althusser.

Shut up and read Bookchin

Insightful. Good fiction writer. Virtuous.

You sound like a kekistanifag.

>>>/reddit/

Animal Farm made me a leftist.

Good writer. Not so good of a person, near the end.

He is my favourite author: 1984 is a great book (not because MUH THEMES just because the fact it goes through a five act structure and five unique styles of fiction). Tonks just get trigged by his existence tbh.

Also he was a legit Marxist that would have made a great Chairman of the TUC in a different timeline.

"Homage to Catalonia" and "Road to Wigan Pier" are must-reads for any burgeoning leftist.

down and out in paris and london was probably my favourite. the life of a plongour seems so /comfy/ despite how horrifying it is. The section on tramps really hit home on the horrifying nature of capital

Crypto-Fascist.

He didn't criticise shit. His Animal Farm is just a story that has no relevance to reality - and is not substantiated by anything. Literally a fairy tale. Similarly enough, his 1984 doesn't assess or criticise anything in particular. This is just a demonstration of plausible future that contradicts Marxism as such.

What he did, is create a template for anti-Soviet propaganda. A paradigm through which anything that relates to Communism should be interpreted.

He is overrated tbh

Orwell was one of the most important writers that made me anarchist communist.

His propaganda was against fascism and capialism, not against worker's control of the means of production, communism, socialism or revolution.

I agree with him in 100%.

He was a piece of shit, even for anarchist standards

Great journalist and fiction writer even if he is a tad overrated. Loved Shooting an Elephant and Homage to Catalonia got me back into leftism

both of them trigger antifa kiddies.

What?

Bullshit. Where did you see a shred of Capitalism in 1984 or Animal Farm?

No, Animal Farm basically presents a story how slave (not even Feudal or Socialist - slave) rebellion failed, except participants are wearing masks of Bolsheviks - this is ultra-reactionary piece of literary work. Similarly enough, 1984 is propaganda piece that simply proclaims Fascist ideas of Totalitarianism to be not only realistic, but superior to Marxism: society is either not run on money (non-Capitalist society that does not rely on Proletariat), nor does it become a money-driven (if Capitalist).

Well, this tells more about you, than about Orwell.

I pulled this image before I'll use it again

Road to Wigan Pier is absolutely spot on about Sheffield still an utter utter shithole

...

It's almost like a unified Europe that wouldn't fuckiing carpet bomb itself was a good idea back then. HUUUMMMMM.

The problem is that you don't see capitalism in it but still communism. That means you're still deeply indoctrinated. How orwellian, indeed.

Dude what the fuck system do the proles live under?

Animal Farm presents how capitalists destroyed people revolution and it's not anti-revolutionary but contrary, pro-revolutionary anti-capitalist propaganda.

?

Still what?

Yeah. Who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed. Just tell me - who exactly indoctrinated me? This excuse doesn't work for decades (USSR itself went anti-Stalinist in 1956), and yet people are trying to tell me that there is some cabal of Stalinists that brainwashes people.

Coherent question, please.

I already said: there are no Capitalists in Animal Farm. It is explicitly slave rebellion.

Then demonstrate those "pro-revolutionary anti-capitalist" motives there.

The entire point of 1984 is that the proles of Oceania live under regular capitalism with some flags. Have you actually read the fucking book?

No, it's not regular Capitalism. It is Totalitarian regime:
1) society is not driven by money (acquisition of wealth), but by political power alone. There is no corruption - you can't simply throw money at problems.
2) the elite (Inner Party) did not divide state property among themselves and are not waging socio-economic war between themselves
3) even Imperialism doesn't exist - there are no proper colonies, nor world wars are happening - only border conflicts

It is not Capitalism. It is explicitly Totalitarianism - the way Fascists were promising their states would function (and how Liberal pretended they did).

Funfact, main character of "1984" lives in London, not Moscow or Berlin. It's direct picture of Western world.

Moreover, when you visit modern capitalist factories, and work there, you'll find that it isn't even exaggeration - the world in which the workers live under capitalism exactly corresponds to the anti-utopia Orwell has drawn. Oceania regime is capitalism par excellence.
If Soviet Union have some similarities it's accidental and resulting from the fact that during Stalinism there was already a full restauratuion.
The truth that Orwell wants to tell you is that the revolution has been betrayed, the meaning of concepts is mendacious and history is forgotten and constructed. Communism is not Soviet Union system and it's not capitalism. A total state and surveillance are not communism.
Communism is stateless, classless society, final stage of libertarian socialism what anarchists tried to create in Catalonia.

It's a metaphor.

Sorry I can't write about literature in English because my language skills are too weak.

But money still exist, ie.:

Because it's final stage of capitalism - centralized total state.

In Cold War there were only "border conflicts" as well.

Geography does not change structure of society.

Basis of modern capitalism is private property. You are not being messed with just because, there are economic reasons for it.

Where did you see private property in 1984? Factories are not being sold. Moreover, you are being messed with just because.

a) We are discussing Orwell here.
b) You are a retard, if you believe this.

If you want to discuss USSR - make a separate thread, and present your beliefs there.

No. He doesn't tell anything about revolution. He makes a fairy tale that implies that it was. He is too much of a coward to say anything directly - and make his position subject to refutation.

> Communism is stateless, classless society, final stage of libertarian socialism what anarchists tried to create in Catalonia.
Yeah. I'm don't even care anymore.

Money do not function as money do - under Capitalist mode of production.

There is no such thing.

Because US were still expanding their sphere of influence. Read Lenin's Imperialism to understand why it is World Wars that are inevitable, not border conflicts.

...

And, the most interesting:

No comments.

>> He is too much of a coward to say anything directly - and make his position subject to refutation.
There is nothing to refute, is there? Personal opinion, zero facts/arguments.

Also, stop mutilating my posts to fit your position.

Bookchin's work is deeply anti-fascist, so I'm not sure what you're talking about

Orwell was a Plagiarist and a Fraud.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Władysław_Reymont
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)

Because you can't make any.

Also
Because Liberals and Fascists had too much vested interest in pretending that Totalitarianism works and society is not driven by economy - as Marxists were telling.

We read both Reymont and Orwell in schools but noone found ant plagiarism.

Orwell was a Marxist to his death and never wirtten that totalitarianism works. Meaning of his work is that communism is not totalitarianism and Stalinist Soviet Union was not communist state.

He literally credit Zamyatin and said on more than one occasion that he used and developed some of his ideas.

Also why the fuck do you care about intellectual property?
t. Commie Literature Major

sort your shit out

He fought for the anti-stalinist communists in the Spanish Civil war.

No.

1984 is based on an assumption that Marxism doesn't - and then presents society that fits description of Totalitarianism to the letter.

Meaning of his work is that Marx was wrong and feels >>> reals.

RRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Totalitarianism and REALITY are mutually exclusive

...

Orwell likely wasn't a Marxist but he most definitely didn't have anything against them. The POUM was a Marxist militia. What Orwell hated was totalitarianism in general and Stalinism in particular. With good reason, he saw what Stalinists did to a genuine revolution that didn't work with their ends-absolutely-justify-all-means strategy.

dont let this deter you its fully based

Antifa (as in the american spectacle smashies)/=/ anti fascist.

Nah it dl's it anyway. Will read after I get finish Victor Serges Memoirs

I dl'd*

Really. Very unpersuaded "Really".

POUM were Trots. And Trotsky went off the rails by that point pretty hard.

You can't hate what literally doesn't exist. However, you can create fake entity to justify yourself.

And what reason would that be? Moreover, genuine Socialist Revolution did not happen in 1917. It was Bourgeois Revolution. Socialism was created only after NEP. So what Revolution exactly are you defending here?

To preserve kulaks (who were abject scum) Soviet Union should've remained India-tier hellhole, yes?

And Trots are Marxists. Orwell was a non-sectarian/non-specific Socialist at that time, that's why he joined the first militia he could.
Those are some hot opinions.
I'm talking about the Catalonian one, the one Orwell personally witnessed. Stalin can't be blamed for betraying the Russian Revolution, that's on Lenin.
Again, I'm talking about Catalonia.

Not necessarily. Quite a few Trots went Liberal at the time. Even one of POUM leaders (Gorkin, IIRC) went openly anti-Communist by the 40s. And POUM itself was pretty right-wing (in a strongly Bukharinite direction - i.e. MarkSoc). So - no. It's hard to call POUM Marxist, even without their alliance with Anarchists against proper Communists.

Not buying this.

Regular Marxism. Totalitarianism is an impossible social formation. It is material conditions (relations of production) that define society. Police State will inevitably devolve into regular corrupt Capitalist kleptocracy. And only Dictatorship of the Proletariat can prevent Capitalism. Nobody else has direct necessity to do it - see Warsaw pact uniformly collapsing into Capitalism after they've put Petit-Bourgeoisie in charge.

You can have only Capitalism or Socialism (unless you go Amish, of course).

And what revolution did LENIN betray?

And how exactly did Stalin "betray" Catalonian Revolution?

To be clear they were Trots who broke with Trotsky because he opposed of the merger with the Worker's and Peasant Bloc.

How about this. Was the USSR socialist?

Ah yes, the ones that deliberately supported and strengthened a bourgeoisie republic against a genuine socialist revolution
And that's not an argument. He says in Homage to Catalonia that he just happened to join the POUM to fight in Spain and it wasn't a deliberate choice.
What's that even mean? It's not a social formation like Socialist or Capitalism, it just describes a style of government.
The one that was forming during the Russian Revolution, the one he advocates for in State and Revolution. One where there's all power to the Soviets and not all power to the party.
I suppose it's hard to call it betrayal when he never showed loyalty to it to begin with. If you're asking how he fucked it over, it did it through only offering military aid and weapons to the factions that supported his strategy of protecting the bourgeois republics, and then subsequently using those factions to purge genuine revolutionaries.

1984 isn't a demonstration of a plausible future. It's an examination of ideology and a damn good one at that.

icepick-tier

1984 is unironically a good society.

Did they break completely? I was under impression he still had some influence there.

Yes. Between 1930/34 and 1986/89 (I don't like hard dates for transition periods).

Socialism implies abolition of Capitalism. Market "Socialism" is still Capitalism.

It is. When there is no argument to respond to.

Fancy that! Just lucked out on not joining filthy Stalinists, eh?

Socialist/Capitalist modes of production are economic, not social. Totalitarianism, however, is not economic. Consequently, I had to use some other word.

You really need to present some facts to support this. Because I distinctly remember Soviets doing things. In 1991 they even abolished USSR and banned Party.

Are you literally insane? IIRC, other than Soviets, only Mexico provided some (miniscule) aid.

Don't lie. Weapons were for those who were fighting against Fascists. Anarchists effectively got a peace treaty with Fascists on their front (Aragon) and weren't doing anything - until some started murdering Communist (Barcelona uprising which saved Fascists).

If description is just as realistic as My Little Pony, I say there is a problem with ideology.

Forget 1984 and Homage to Catalonia, it's his collected essays, journalism and letters which are worth a read.
They're not stories, he actually lays out his political views. And you can tell he's too reformist and optimistic. Keep in mind that in the 40s, there was still a hope of socialism through the ballot box, which is why he's more of a demsoc/hard left socdem and not a revolutionary.

1984 hit the headlines this week, topping the bestseller charts at not-at-all-dystopic retail behemoth Amazon. Appalled by the Newspeak of the Trump administration, consumers are snapping up Orwell’s pocket-sized guide to totalitarianism and post-truth politics.

But an alternative-factual reading reveals Orwell’s message has been badly misunderstood for all these years. In fact, the Britain of 1984 is a socialist enclave, doing what it can to feed and care for its citizens though it is reeling from atomic war, surrounded by rogue states and beset by an extremist insurgency.

Winston the reactionary

Though the narrator is omniscient, we effectively view Britain through Winston’s jaundiced, petty-bourgeoisie eyes. He clearly loathes the proletarians, hearing their voices as cockney blather, viewing them as a mass of “cattle”, dismissing them as “small, dark and ill-favoured”. But is life so bad for the proles who make up 83 per cent of the population? They are allowed to drink, gamble, and fuck, and live with relative freedom.

Winston asks: “Why should one feel it to be intolerable unless one had some kind of ancestral memory that things had once been different?” This is reactionary. Winston is part of that privileged, middle-class minority which works for the government, the “hands” of the “brain” of the body politic. He longs for a capitalist past of small government and opportunities for personal financial advancement, a utopia for the petty-bourgeoisie but not for the working classes.

Perhaps this is unfair. Winston is clearly unwell — so unwell he will eventually be provided with electroconvulsive therapy free of charge on the NHS. He lives in a war zone, after all, and maybe he is suffering from PTSD in the aftermath of a bomb rocket explosion. Near the start of the novel, he remains self-aware enough to realize his thoughts are a “stream of rubbish”.

He is an inverse Quixote, in his delusion re-imagining his vital clerical contribution to the war-effort as a record-keeper as something less noble. Of course, Winston is subject to background checks and review by his superiors, but any government employee handling sensitive material should expect the same level of scrutiny.

It is his paranoia which magnifies these checks and balances into something sinister. The proles themselves do not face the same level of scrutiny — this is why Winston and Julia meet for their trysts in a proletarian area.

Just as he hates the working classes, Winston “disliked nearly all women, and specially the young and pretty ones.” The psychosexual complex which makes him fantasize about raping Julia and “smashing [her] head in with a cobblestone” is further proof that Winston is a very sick man, who again is helped through some tough but effective talking therapy provided free of charge by the state.

His misogyny dovetails with his lust for capitalist individualism. Looking at Julia after she puts on proletarian make-up, he ruminates: “With just a few dabs of color in the right places she had become not only very much prettier, but, above all, far more feminine.” He wants to see her in “silk stockings and high-heeled shoes”, as “a woman, not a Party comrade.” She embodies his counter-revolutionary fantasies.

Winston, it has been shown, cannot be trusted. So what’s really going on in Airstrip One? O’Brien and avowed enemy of the state Emmanuel Goldstein, whose subversive diatribes seduce Winston, do not agree on many things. But there is no doubt Winston is living in the aftermath of an atomic war.

Even a totalitarian entity with the power and resources of the Party would struggle to false-flag such an immense catastrophe. Winston and Julia fuck in the “belfry of a ruinous church in an almost-deserted stretch of country where an atomic bomb had fallen thirty years earlier”, hedonistically copulating on Ground Zero of a war which must have killed their neighbors and loved ones.

This is what Winston forgets, or selfishly pushes from his mind. The Party was and is at war, and though it has maturely reached an accord with its rivals and no longer threatens the earth with nuclear holocaust, all its citizens are united in this struggle.

His influence there decreased over time but the break eventually was complete. Trotsky was critical of the POUM while still maintaining they were the best chance for a revolutionary organization in Spain. By the time they had entered into the Popular Front though he was calling them ‘the chief obstacle on the road to the creation of a revolutionary party’ for their refusal to break with the Popular Front.

Good writer. He understood a lot of things about power and hierarchy. He got to see firsthand how a place reacts to revolution. He literally shot at fascists and got shot in the neck in the name of freedom and liberation.
Sadly, normal people today see his most famous books as depicting socialism itself, as opposed to specifically depicting a mildly leftist and horrifically authoritarian society. Most leftists today hate him because most leftists today are authoritarian and actually this the society depicted in 1984 is something to aspire to.

That sentence doesn't even make sense on its own or as a response to me. But, yes there is a problem with ideology as a force that structures our perception of reality to such an extent that it's difficult to even conduct resistance that isn't conditioned and permitted by the existing social order.

What warranted those specific dates, did they actively try to abolish capital?

Sentence makes perfect sense. Orwell's ideology required depiction of impossible society to demonstrate the bogeyman people were supposed to be scared of.

Reading Homage to catalonia drastically reduced my ☭TANKIE☭ levels

snitch
socdem

He is explaining what communism in the east would look like and aldous Huxley is communism in the west

fuck off brainlet

Huxley hated consumerism you fucking tard, and the society in BNW is very clearly presented as being capitalist from a historical materialist lense.

Hell, outside of BNW it's clear that he hates capitalism, even if he focuses on the consumer end with market manipulation and advertising rather than the production end.

You’re under the assumption communism is strictly an economic theory and not a system of control. Huxley and global elites don’t give a fuck about consumerism, capitalism, or economic theory because they already have all the money. It’s about how to control people

Nice conspiracy you have there,

I actually read some of his short stories when I was young long before I knew who he was or that he was a socialist (+I was a kid at the time so I wasn't really that interested in politics) and I vaguely remember that there was a story about a shipwrecked sailor who meets a native an they work together to survive and become friends or something like that. Other than some outdated language, the stories seemed pretty progressive for their time. Didn't know he was a comrade.

Great writer. Wrong about class collaboration, but still pretty cool.

in the trotskyite sense, yeah

You sure it's not Robinson Crusoe?

Petit-Bourgeois to the end. At least his works are (those that I've read, which is quite a lot, but not Iron Heel). Some (like Valley of the Moon or Burning Daylight) are quite anti-Capitalist, but even those remain stories of individuals.

You’re a fucking retard. How bout you actually open up your perspective a little bit

ML's will literally take over any political organisation they are in if given the slightest chance, and censor or stamp out all dissent. It's literally part of their ideology, they way they work.

This is what happened in the Spanish Revolution with the POUM and the anarchists. They way I understand it is that Orwell saw this and realised that in a game of authoritarian power grabbing, the only the most brutal will reach the top, and survive- thus the main goal will not be to have the socialism that he envisioned, but a "socialism" with emphasis on perpetuating the current leadership structure- or at least maintaining certain people is positions of power.

One can choose to view this criticism of authoritarianism or reject it. I think it is PERTINENT AS FUCK, ☭TANKIE☭s tend not to like him for obvious reasons.

It's hardly our fault general public keeps choosing ML over other alternatives, if there is a choice.

If that's a valid argument then replacing "Bolshevik" with "libertarian" and "ML" with "the free market," yields a valid argument for the existence of capitalism.

Orwell earlier on was a misguided Communist. As he got older, he kinda just became a fucking anarcho-liberal. He was a traitor. Animal Farm was an entertaining but ultimately worthless read, 1984 is a good book on the nature of totalitarianism, and Homage to Catalonia should be taken with a grain of salt.

underrated post

Not really. People often get murdered - or punished some other way - when they refuse to choose free market IRL.

ML's who "literally take over any political organization" don't have anything, other than arguments. It's just our arguments are more useful for people who actually want to change things.

one of the things that comes through in his war-time letters is how much he hated the british upper classes and the military officers who he called "blimps." he joined a home guard unit (paramilitary formations in case of a german invasion) led by some ww1 leftover; kinda like a monty python parody of a british officer.

youtube.com/watch?v=imhrDrE4-mI

he wanted these middle-aged working class dudes to beat the crap out of the "blimp" and form a workers militia. well, orwell was in a trot militia at one point. though more than any coherent marxist or socialist tendency i'd say orwell's biggest cause was anti-imperialism. he hated the british empire to his last breath.

unfortunately a lot of orwell admirers are imperialists and various liberals and the sort. and the CIA.

Actual idiot. You're really doing something wrong when you write some of the most effective anti-leftist propaganda works whilst claiming to be a socialist.

Did he accidentally write his snitch list as well?

If you rat out leftists to your country's Intelligence Services, you're a piece of shit, and can't really call yourself a leftist.
Personally, I can't stand many strands of leftism, like left-communism and anarchism. But I would never rat out leftcoms or anarchists to the government, no matter what.

Orwell did nothing wrong. All of the "leftists" he "ratted out" were opportunists, revisionists, liberals, and anarchists - rabble, basically. No actually significant elements of leftism were harmed by anything Orwell ever did. His literature is also some of the finest pro-socialist reading since Marx himself. Don't let butthurt anarkiddies fool you.

nobody likes rats, this is a universal trend everywhere from criminal world to political organizations

Only brainlets think that 1984 and Animal Farm are anti-communist works.

They 100% are.

to say so is an admission that the dystopias Orwell crafted were communist

outing yourself as a an idiot

No. It is an admission that dystopias of Orwell are impossible within Communist theory:

I.e. Orwell claims Marxism to be wrong.

Animal Farm is a painfully obvious allegory for Stalin taking power in the Soviet Union. He didn't even try to be subtle with it.

Anti-Stalinism = Anti-Communism

...

Eugene Dubs was better

Kind of a dumbass, ain't he?

How the fuck is anti-stalinim = anti-communism its like is like saying being anti-republican makes you anti-capitalist democracy.

Because there is nothing unique or special about being butthurt about Stalin and the only communist revolution that succeeded and managed to make something of itself.

You can be the most ideologically pure socialist and comrade, but if your only praxis is to whine about other socialists and be a useful idiot to reactionaries, what fucking good are you?

You are implying that there were multiple variants of going Socialist (abolishing Capitalism and switching to Central Planning).

But that is not the case. So far we have only one successful model of Socialism - Soviet. Everyone else followed in their footsteps. I.e. our only success is tied to the USSR of 1930s, a time and place strongly associated with Stalin - it is irrelevant whether or not this connection is justified (and to what extent), in fact it is preferable for anti-Communists to attribute everything to Stalin. This way any attack on Stalin automatically becomes an attack on all policies of 1930s - on Central Planning, on Dictatorship of the Proletariat exercising its power to enact the very first Socialist Revolution of 1930/34.

This is why anti-stalinism is inherently connected to rejection of Socialism. It is no coincidence that anti-stalinist campaign in USSR of 1950s was going hand-in-hand with the first decentralization of Soviet economy - a step back from Socialism, a process that would lead to restoration of Capitalism during Perestroika (which was also hysterically anti-stalinist). Discredit Stalin and you discredit policies associated with him.

Anti-stalinism is no different from slandering Marx or Engels - those are no personal attacks, but attack on symbols. Practically nobody cares about either of them as persons - it is their connection to Communism that attract Right-wingers.

I'm quite certain, nobody would've been giving Stalin any flak, if USSR switched to Central Planning under Lenin (just like nobody gives a fuck about Saudi Arabia - which simply has no right to exist in a civilized world). If this happened, it is Lenin who would've been declared by the whole Bourgeois world as the Mad Tyrant and Villain #1. It is famine of 1921/22 that would've been touted as the greatest "crime" of Communism, and it is the Civil War that would've been painted as the period of Great Terror.

However, Lenin died before Soviets went Socialist. This is why - as a historical figure - Lenin is not as antagonistic to Capitalism, as Stalin - who was there when Soviets finally finished what they started in 1917. Which is how any pseudo-Left movement will fight to the last breath against "Stalinism", but will not be as vicious when it comes to "Leninism" - even if there is no difference between ideologies. People can always pretend that Lenin would've done something different (i.e. not switching to Socialist mode of production - though hardly anyone will openly admit it, preferring weasel out somehow).

Even Parenti is not free of propaganda.

A good ☭TANKIE☭, that's what

Nothing about 1984 is remotely plausible. It's complete nonsense from start to finish.

Can you elaborate? I work in a factory and it sucks but I don't quite see it like that

There literally were, all through the 20th century there were Anarchists, leftcoms, trots, etc.

But it wasn’t successful, it degenerated into bureaucratic dictatorship almost immediately and then collapsed in a few decades.

Blaming a lack of ideological purity for the failure of the USSR is anti-materialist as fuck. In order to do this you would have to completely ignore the state mechanisms of the USSR that allowed these revisionists to come to power in the first place, and to be impossible to dislodge once they were there. It’s a clear issue of a failure to maintain the integrity of proletarian democracy, and thus to keep the state accountable to the people. Stalin’s policies were clearly not successful in establishing socialism, because they were able to be dismantled right after regardless of what proles did or didn’t want.

That makes no fucking sense, I can criticize one policy without criticizing another. Fully socializing the economy is a good thing, purging the military to the extent that the first few months of the German invasion almost destroys the country is not.

But we aren’t right wingers, this is retarded symbolist thinking, that because Stalin is associated with communism criticizing his policies is the same as opposing communism itself. That makes no fucking sense. Reagan is associated with capitalism, but liberals criticize him all the time. This doesn’t make them anti capitalists.

None of those were actually implemented. Or are you telling me Catalonia succeeded at reaching Socialism?

Yes, it was.

It never did.

When it stopped following it's own model and tried alternative approach. Which should be used as an additional evidence of importance of Soviet model, not a proof of it not working.

When did I blame it?

Nobody claimed that DotP is infallible. It's just, given chance, it will correct mistakes - since it is motivated to do so. Consequently, the objective is to protect DotP and those of state mechanisms it operates through. Revisionism will always be out there, as well as possibility of it getting into power. Because that's real life, not a fairy tale.

It's the opposite: Proletariat had power and got conned. Next time it will be wiser.

Those were not "Stalin's" policies, but Bolshevik. And your logic is insane. You are basically claiming that Socialism is impossible to dismantle.

Proles didn't want anything. Just like you they were certain that Socialism is invulnerable - which is how they ended up thinking that letting a few corrupt politicians and managers run amok is not an issue.

Except you are not criticizing shit. You are parroting Cold War propaganda.

As I said: Cold War propaganda. There is literally no reason to think that purged officers were loyal or competent (see: archive.is/MPBaj ). Moreover, the extent of purging is greatly exaggerated.

< use doctrine developed by religious fanatic
< sabotage Paris Commune
< fight against Socialists during Russian Revolution
< sabotage post-WWI anti-Capitalist uprisings
< backstab Socialists during Spanish Civil War
< support Fascists in contemporary Ukraine
< support Fascists in contemporary Venezuela
I would recommend against using this as an argument.

What is retarded symbolist thinking is to name the whole period - with all reforms and events - "Stalinism" and attribute EVERYTHING to Stalin. THAT is what is retarded. So don't expect to get away with claiming "it's just Stalin" - yes, even if you call it "anti-stalinism". It is not about Stalin.

Did you read my post? Reagan is not the only pro-Capitalist politician.

I didn’t say that, but it’s factually incorrect to suggest that the Bolshevik approach to socialism is or was the only option available. Titoism was implemented as well, by your logic then it should be seen as just as viable. Even the Khmer Rouge managed to implement their insanity for a while, that doesn’t make it a good idea. So it’s actually factually incorrect to suggest that ML was the only example of socialism that was implemented.

Where is it then? You can’t call a system successful if it so easily subverted, if Stalin’s term as general secretary is what you define as “real socialism” then you have less than 30 years at which point it collapses almost immediately after his death. If that’s the case then it was completely lacking in any ability to secure its gains, in spite of all the repression that was designed to accomplish this.

When you blame revisionism, you are suggesting that the system failed because people weren’t believing in Marxism enough, instead of examining the structural flaws that gave rise to corruption, revision, etc.

But why did it stop? Because of the will of the people? Clearly not, which means that the state machinery was immediately after Stalin’s death clearly not in the hands of the workers. It was in the hands of the bureaucrats and party bosses, who did what porkies always do and acted in their own interest. If proletarian democracy had been intact under Stalin (even though it had been effectively abolished in the 20s) then presumably they would have been able to stop this from happening, or at least dislodge the revisionists over the next 40 years.

Then why didn’t it? You can’t believe that the USSR was DotP, and that DotP will correct it’s mistakes, and that at the same time the proles sat on their hands for 40 years while their country went to shit. The fact is that there was not DotP in the Soviet Union, not since the ban on factions and one man management. It was literally illegal for workers to organize independently ffs.

How did they have any power? It was illegal to oppose the party line once it had been decided, and it was decided by and large by the party elite. They didn’t even have workplace democracy ffs. There was not a shred of genuine proletarian democracy left in that country.

No, I’m saying that successful policies of socialism won’t be dismantled almost immediately after the death of one general secretary. There will be safeguards ensuring political power in the hands of the workers, something that they didn’t have.

Is that why the Soviet Union got BTFO by fucking FINLAND? Is that why the Nazis did in 6 months what the German Empire was unable to do against the Tsar for 4 years? That means that the Soviet Army was in a worse state than the fucking Tsarist Army in 1914, who couldn’t even arm half their troops properly.

I generally don’t, I’ll criticize ML though, and ML failed to build socialism. Even if you are retarded enough to think that the USSR of the 30s was socialist (it wasn’t due to the lack of working class actually governing itself) then you can criticize them for not building a DotP that can actually last.

And the Bolsheviks aren’t the only socialists.

Only if you consider Titoism or Khmer Rouge to be Socialist. You can even add Amish to the list. However, for all practical intents and purposes (i.e. actual abolition of Capitalist mode of production while retaining industry) - we have just one model that worked.

It was not subverted easily. It took 30 years.

BULLSHIT

Because Central Planning was destroyed.

False.

Please, provide sources.

Didn't what and when? Once general public became painfully aware of the mistake - in the 90s - it had little power to reverse it.

30 years. And you do realize we have proles sitting on their hands for centuries?

It did not. You really need to get your head out of your ass. USSR was not some impoverished hellhole.

Bullshit. It was completely legal - even if heavily discouraged. For example, one of the independent "trade unions" I managed to research (Free Inter-Professional Union of Workers) consisted out of handful of dissidents (less than 20) - and everyone had different profession. I.e. it was only nominally a trade union - and it was shut down due to anti-Soviet propaganda (which 100% believable, given the names of participants), not because it was independent trade union.

The only actual (albeit poorly documented) independent trade union I managed to find was that of Ukrainian miners. However, it was not founded on any Socialist ideas, but was extremely nationalistic - a remnant of UPA.

Absolute and overwhelming majority of workers simply saw no reason to participate in this nonsense.

It's called voting. You vote - and then everybody does what majority decides, not what you personally want.

Bullshit.

They weren't. The process took 30 years.

This argument doesn't even begin to make sense. Did you read the thread I linked?
tl;dr: apparently, in 1936 Red Army was literally incapable of operating in any manner.

Also, read a history book or something. Soviets won Winter War: they got everything (and more) they were demanding. The only reason Red Army didn't march through Helsinki was the threat from Britain to declare war on USSR - and actually follow through with it (unlike with Sitzenkrieg).

Combined Anglo-French forces were defeated and France fell within 40 days. It's called Blitzkrieg - and you are called "an imbecile".

< generally
I can't help but ask: How much time on average per day do you spend be thinking this way - and how much time do you spend thinking the opposite way? Also, did you try visiting psychiatrist? It might be treatable.

I've never seen convincing arguments that support your position.

Stop being obtuse. We are talking about the fact that it was them who made it happen.

...

There was a ban on factions within the party, and it was a one party state. How can there be democracy when dissenting from the party line and campaigning for change is banned?

marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch4-2.htm

A democracy cannot function if all debate and opposition is shut down once a decision is made, even if it is made by majority vote.

workersliberty.org/story/2012/05/02/trade-unions-and-soviet-state

The Soviet trade unions were completely inept, undemocratic tools of the party elite, and independent worker’s movements were heavily repressed, which is why so few of them appeared. The Soviet trade unions were basically company unions, and were not meaningful organs of worker’s power in the slightest.

Except opposing the decision in any way is repressed, including protesting or campaigning against it. This is of course assuming the integrity of the internal party debates in the first place, given the power the party had to punish dissent via purging, which made meaningful opposition impossible.

As for the Winter War, it was a colossal embarrassment for the Soviets. They got their demands sure, but only because they had more troops than the Finns had bullets. They attacked with more than twice as many troops and were overwhelmingly superior in firepower and resources, and yet there were 6 dead Soviets for every dead Finn. Their performance was so atrocious that Hitler actually accelerated his plans to attack the USSR, because it was obvious that the Red Army was woefully ill prepared for even a minor conflict.

All of that is beside the point though, because what I’m trying to say is that you can criticize one policy without attacking another. Even Luxembourg criticized the Bolsheviks for their repression of political and press freedoms, while praising the revolution itself. Are you going to suggest that she was an anti-communist for daring to criticize them? An anti-Bolshevik socialist would simply be a person who believes that the Bolsheviks had sufficient flaws and failures to warrant opposition to them in general, which is not the same as saying they are opposed to socialism in principle. The only way this could be true is if you consider the Bolsheviks to be infallible and exempt from criticism, since if they are open to legitimate socialist criticism, then they are open to legitimate socialist opposition.

That’s true, but you are proceeding as if criticizing them is the same as criticizing the concept of communism altogether. In order for this to be true two things would have to also be true: first that the Bolsheviks were infallible, they didn’t make any mistakes and that everything they did produced the best possible results, which is absurd. Second, you would have to assume that there will be no other successful attempts at socialism using a different approach in the future, and to state that would be even more absurd. To suggest that the Bolsheviks were the only successful socialist movement to date, and thus to criticize them is to criticize socialism, is to assume that nothing could have been, or ever will be, done differently.

If you want to argue that the Bolsheviks did the best they could and that their methods are still the best available then fine, but that’s different from suggesting that criticizing these positions is anti-communism which assumes that they are perfect and somehow beyond criticism.

From Hop-Picking

fucking based tbh

Gypsies and women are truly the Jewish niggers of anarchism.

Bump

Which did not ban discussions before the decision was made, nor the internal discussions afterwards. It was simply was forbidden to publicly promote platform that contradicted the one that was accepted by party - and stay within party.

It is USA that is a "one party state" - with Demopublicans having practically all seats. But USSR had actual non-partisan candidates. Even in Supreme Soviet there was regularly 25-30% of elected congressmen who were non-partisan.

Bullshit. All bureaucracy has decision-making rights granted to it - making it "privileged" by default. As for political power, it always belonged to general public.

Which is why there were intense debates throughout 1920s? Factual evidence refutes your own claims.

Actual sources, please. Not second(or third)-hand opinions.

Sources, please.

Yes. Disobeying the law is actually punishable, you retard.

Why do you even need to use authority of Party when you are actively campaigning against its policies?

Except there were multiple internal factions vying for dominance, with different factions getting upper hand at different times: the absolute free-for-all of 1920s, purge of at least two different factions in 1937/38, change of the ruling faction in 1953-56, as well as splintering and formation of new factions in 1960s, and, finally struggle for power throughout the 1980s.

You are describing Western politics here.

You did not prove anything and ignored two explicit requests to prove that Red Army was harmed. You only tried to derail discussion several times. But we are not discussing mythical Finnish provess

Strawman. We are not talking about actual criticism here. We are talking about anti-stalinism - which is whole different beast altogether.

Again, you are substituting actual topic with the different one.

We are talking about "criticism" that falls apart once you are forced to prove that Stalin was an omnipotent dictator.